New Delhi: Can MPs claim immunity from criminal prosecution for taking bribe in connection with speech or voting in Parliament or State Legislature? The Supreme Court is now going to consider this. Or rather, reconsider.
In 1998, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court ruled that parliamentarians were given such immunity under Article 105 of the Constitution.
The judgment pertains to 1993 The ‘JMM bribery scandal’, a case involving allegations of several MPs of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) and Ajit Singh’s faction of the Janata Dal has been bribed to help Bail Narasimha Rao government in the Lok Sabha
In a 3:2 verdict, the Constitution Bench gave this verdict Article 105 “provides protection to a member of Parliament against proceedings in a court of law relating to, or in connection with, or connexion with, anything said by, or vote given by, him in Parliament”.
Twenty-five years later, Justice S. A five-judge Constitution bench comprising Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V. Ramasubramaniam and BV Nagaratna will consider whether the judgment needs to be reconsidered by a larger bench.
Here’s a look at what the 1998 decision said and why the court is now considering revisiting the decision.
Read also: What Indian voters buy with ‘bribes’ just before elections: Alcohol, fine food and clothes
What happened in 1993 and what did the court say
1991 general election hung parliament thrownWith Congress (I) emerging as the single largest party. With the support of several regional parties, the Congress formed the government under the leadership of PV Narasimha Rao.
In July 1993, Ajay Mukhopadhyay, leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) brought No confidence motion in the monsoon session of Parliament. Ultimately the motion was defeated by a margin of 14 votes.
However, in 1996, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) received a Complaint It is alleged that some JMM MPs and Ajit Singh’s group Janata Dal members were bribed to vote for Rao’s government.
Meanwhile, the MP was allegedly involved in the matter sought immunity from criminal prosecution because his voting took place inside Parliament.
Article 105 of the Constitution Provides for the powers and privileges of the Houses of Parliament, their members and committees. Among other things, the provision says, “no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceeding in any court in respect of anything said or vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof”.
Article 194 get Equal exemption for MLAs
In 1998, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the MPs. In its 3:2 ruling, the court ruled that MPs who accepted bribes and voted on a motion of no confidence would be immune from criminal prosecution because the alleged bribery was “in connection with the parliamentary vote”.
However, the court Government That Ajit Singh, who was allegedly involved in the conspiracy but did not vote, was not entitled to the same protection.
Why is the matter before the SC again?
Sita Soren was the leader of JMM in 2012 accused of accepting bribe to vote for industrialist RK AgarwalAn independent candidate in the Rajya Sabha elections.
Soren is the daughter-in-law of party chief and former Jharkhand chief minister Shibu Soren, who was one of the accused in the 1993 cash-for-votes case.
Although Sita Soren did not vote for Agarwal, a criminal case was instituted against her by the CBI and the court took cognizance of the offenses under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
In February 2014, the Jharkhand High Court ruled that the principle under which Ajit Singh was denied parliamentary immunity would also apply to Soren.
The court ruled that the immunity granted to MLAs under Article 194 would not apply to MLAs who take bribes to vote in a certain way but cast their votes in another way.
“Thus, I am of the considered view that the petitioner’s act of receiving money as per the conspiracy and agreement with RK Aggarwal would have no bearing on the vote by reason of the fact that he had not cast his vote in favour. RK Aggarwal said and As such, they would not have any immunity guaranteed under sub-section (2) of Article 194 of the Constitution of India,” the court said in its judgement.
the decision was Challenge: was placed before the Supreme Court in March 2014 and before a three-judge bench.
Bench on 7 March 2019 Specified The case to a larger bench, “has raised doubts as to the wider implications of the question which has arisen and the issue is a matter of substantial public importance.”
what happened so far
The matter came up for hearing before a five-judge bench on Tuesday after the central government and Sita Soren submitted that the 1998 judgment was a judgment of the Supreme Court. correct position of law Regarding MPs and MLAs,
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued on behalf of the Central Government called The 1998 judgment was upheld by the “constitutionally correct” principle and urged the court to send the case back to a two- or three-judge bench to hear Sita’s appeal.
Arguing for Soren, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran argued that the Jharkhand High Court had wrongly applied the 1998 judgment.
Since both the Central Government and Soren supported the 1998 judgment, the Bench Appointed Senior advocate PS Patwalia and advocate Gaurav Aggarwal will assist in this.
Posting the matter for hearing on December 6, the court said: “If we accept the majority judgment in PV Narasimha Rao, the matter ends there. But if not, it will have to go to a larger bench.”
(Edited by Uttara Ramaswamy)
Read also: 5 years ago, India ‘legalised’ political corruption. Now, it’s time to end the secret money